Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) amend the child pornography provisions with respect to the type of written and audio material that constitutes child pornography, and with respect to the child pornography offences, defences and penalties;
(b) add a new category to the offence of sexual exploitation of young persons and make additional amendments to further protect children from sexual exploitation;
(c) increase the maximum penalty for child sexual offences, for failing to provide the necessaries of life and for abandoning a child;
(d) make child abuse an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing and direct the courts to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for offences involving abuse of a child;
(e) amend and clarify the applicable test and criteria that need to be met for the use of testimonial aids, for excluding the public, for imposing a publication ban, for using video-recorded evidence or for appointing counsel for self-represented accused to conduct a cross-examination of certain witnesses; and
(f) create an offence of voyeurism and the distribution of voyeuristic material.
This enactment also amends the Canada Evidence Act to abolish the requirement for a competency hearing for children under 14 years of age.

Age of Consent

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that it is an honour to speak to this bill, especially since you are in the chair. We have an opportunity to work together on another committee. I must say that, up to now, it has been very pleasant, although the situation has at times been tense for reasons that escape you and me.

To begin, I would like to make two preliminary remarks and eight comments, which I hope will provide food for thought. My first preliminary remark is as follows. It is somewhat odd to be speaking to this topic, the age of consent. These days, in the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, one of the topics we are discussing is Bill C-2, which also concerns the age of consent and the sexual exploitation of children.

We are having this debate for Bill C-2. I think that it should take place in that context and not now, in this House. I believe it is a bit of a duplication of the resources and efforts of parliamentarians. The member could easily have introduced his bill as amendments during discussion of Bill C-2.

The second preliminary remark is as follows. It is something to see a party wanting to toughen the Young Offenders Act and the application of the Criminal Code as it pertains to young people, thus reducing the age of criminal liability, on the one hand, and raising the age of consent, on the other. In my opinion, it makes no sense. I realize the Conservative Party is not necessarily known for the logic of its positions, but this is a flagrant lack of rigour on a matter of considerable sensitivity.

In the Bloc Québécois we oppose Motion M-221, and Bill C-313, which propose to raise the legal age of consent in sexual relations from 14 to 16 years.

I have to say right off that our position in the Bloc in no way means we would like, support or promote sexual relations between young adolescents. Far from it. We do, however, believe that this is not the right approach.

I shall now proceed to my comments. First, sexual exploitation of children under 18 is already illegal, and consent is not a valid defence. That is already the case.

My second point is that, by raising the legal age of consent, we would be jumping on the bandwagon of sexual repression. Many sexually abused youth have reported that the huge industry of prostitution is, unfortunately, created and fostered by the absence of a healthy sexual climate and of adequate sexual education.

The third point that is important to make is that a higher age of consent would in fact criminalize sexual activity between peers. This means that persons below the age of consent would be prohibited from consenting to engage in sexual relations, regardless of the age of their partners. For instance, such an amendment would enable the courts to try a 16-year old for having sexual contact of any kind with his 15-year old girlfriend.

My fourth point about the age of consent is that raising it does not really solve anything, because there are adults who want to have sexual relations with children. If adult predators are the problem, they should be dealt with directly. Perhaps we ought to assess how evidence is collected and presented and what the role of the courts should be in protecting children. We have to ask ourselves the following question. How can we protect children against abuse through exploitation when the abusers flout the law?

Even setting the age of consent at 25 would not eliminate abuse. The only way to protect adolescents is by educating and empowering them.

The legislation should be based on the activity engaged in, not the age of those involved. Age does not matter, if abuse and exploitation are illegal and criminal.

The problem lies not with the legislation, but with its application. If current federal legislation against exploitation is difficult to enforce, then it has to be changed. That is what we are doing with Bill C-2.

Increasing the age of sexual consent could have the perverse effect of introducing some young people to the justice system. There are many lawyers in this House and others watching us. The justice system is complicated and cumbersome. People involved in it often pay a personal, psychological and moral toll. It is not something we would want for our young people.

Increasing the age of sexual consent also prevents young people from making decisions for themselves. I find that the age of consent is often used as an excuse to limit access to sexual education and contraceptives.

In closing, I want to reiterate the following. We are absolutely against the exploitation of children. I introduced Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentencing on anyone found guilty of sexual offences involving a minor, whether related to pornography, pedophilia, or the sexual exploitation of children. Bill C-303 will provide for minimum sentences, mandatory prison sentences, for the people who exploit these children who are the future of our society and who are so dear to our hearts.

I have already mentioned in this House and I will repeat it again today, my Bill C-303 to impose tougher sentences on those found guilty of sexual offences involving minors, will be presented as an amendment to Bill C-2 at the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We will discuss it on the Tuesday when we come back from our break.

I can guarantee that the next time Bill C-2 comes before this House, it will include minimal sentences for sexual predators who attack our children. It will be a major improvement in law in general and also in the protection of our children who are, as I was saying, vulnerable persons. These young people deserve the protection of all the members in this honourable House.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to lead off the debate on my Motion No. 221, which seeks to amend section 150.1 of the Criminal Code to change the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age.

Currently, the age of consensual sex in Canada is set at 14 years of age. This is below the international norm of 16 years of age, and significantly out of line with the international convention on the rights of the child's recommendation of 18 years of age.

While I do not think consensual sex among teens should not be illegal, steps must be taken to prohibit sexual relations between adults and young people under 16 years of age. As it stands now, there is nothing in the Criminal Code about the age of the partners of children aged 14 to 18. So, in effect, adults can have sex with anyone 14 or older as long as they are not in a position of power or authority.

Recent reports in the media of adults engaging in sexual acts with 14 year old children confirm that people are taking advantage of the law.

Earlier this year a 40 year old man, who had sex with a 14 year old mentally handicapped girl, was acquitted of sexual assault. With the legal age of consent for sex at 14 years of age, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the girl did not consent to have sex with the older man and it was unable to do that.

One of the reasons why I became involved in elected politics was to fight for the protection of our children. Raising the age of consent is an important step that must be taken by government for it will give law enforcement officials another tool with which to pursue adults who prey upon our children.

Canada has a long history of prohibiting sexual intercourse with young females, regardless of consent. From 1892 to 1988 sexual intercourse outside of marriage with females under 14 years of age, and for those under 16 years of age and of previously chaste character, was illegal.

The maximum penalty upon conviction for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years of age was life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age was five years imprisonment. The law made no reference to young males.

Amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed unlawful intercourse and seduction offences and in their place created new offences called sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching that now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent.

The offence of sexual exploitation also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 years of age but under 18 years of age where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and the child.

Since 1988 there have been repeated attempts by MPs to increase the age of consent. For example, in April 2002 the Canadian Alliance introduced a supply day motion for debate that called upon the government to raise the age of sexual consent to at least 16 years of age in order to give underaged children greater legal protection from sexual predators and child pornographers.

The government refused to support the motion and it went down to defeat by a vote of 163 to 62. The justice minister at the time, Mr. Martin Cauchon, said the Liberal government could not support the motion because consultation was needed. Besides this motion, there have been many private members' bills introduced and debated, including one by the member for Calgary Northeast in the 35th, 36th and 37th Parliaments, and another by the member for Wild Rose in both the second and third sessions of the 37th Parliament.

In this very session of Parliament we have been debating Bill C-2 with its proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at enhancing the protection of children from sexual predators, pedophiles and pornographers, but noticeably absent from that bill, as I noted in my speech at second reading, is any proposal to raise the age of consent. The government apparently lacks the political will to make this vitally important change.

In 1982 former Prime Minister Chrétien, then justice minister, told the Toronto Star :

Children are innocent victims of vicious people. They cannot protect themselves and we have to protect them. I hate the thought of these people abusing people who are too young to realize in what it is they are participating.

If only his government and the one here today had shown the same sort of single-minded determination to protect children.

There is no question that sexual exploitation is a real and serious risk for children and youth in Canada. Our country's low age of consent for sexual intercourse is putting our children at risk. There are many reports of an increase in the number of youth being sexually exploited. With our lax laws, Canada is becoming a sex tourism destination for Americans and other foreigners as demonstrated by a Texas man who allegedly lured a 14 year old boy to an Ottawa hotel room last month.

Canada is listed on the Internet as an international source for sex with children and youth. The current age of consent leaves children and teenagers open to becoming targets of Internet sex scams, pornographers, pedophiles and sexual abuse.

About one-third of the child luring cases in Canada involve Americans trolling the Internet for sexual prey, according to a national tip line for web-based child sexual exploitation. In the last two years, cybertip.ca has had 20 tips on child luring cases that were later investigated by police. Of those, 32% of the suspects were American and 58% were Canadian. By the end of 2004 there were 75 web related child luring cases before the courts according to the Department of Justice.

Most of the tips reported to cybertip.ca since 2002 involve 13 and 14 year old girls. While it is difficult to document the reasons for the trend, one reason may be Canada's low age of consent laws. It is well known among police investigators that pedophiles use chat rooms to share secrets. Websites, for example, list the age of consent laws by country to facilitate sex tourism. Raising the age of consent to be more consistent with other western industrialized countries would discourage sex tourism. Having an older age would send a message internationally that children in Canada are not available for sex.

Having the age of consent set at 14 also makes it easy for predators to recruit young people into the sex trade without facing any repercussions or without initially committing any offence. Once the youth are entrenched in the relationship, they are then convinced or coerced into engaging in illegal activity.

Recruiters consciously choose to form consensual relationships with youth over the age of consent but as young as possible in order to make it easy to gain a hold on them. Raising the age of consent would assist in the prosecution of adults who buy sex from young children because the adults could be charged with sexual assault and it would not be necessary to prove that there was negotiation for money or other consideration.

In B.C.'s lower mainland we are all too familiar with the problem of prostitution. Studies have found that 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes entered the trade as children. There are literally hundreds of prostitutes under 17 years of age currently working Vancouver streets. The recruitment process for the sex trade in Canada preys on young girls and boys, and specifically targets those who are at the current age of consent.

According to the Children of the Street Society, the majority of parents who call asking for help have children who are 14 years old and are being recruited into the trade. They argue that if the police had the ability to pick up girls or boys, regardless of their consent, and return them to their family or take them to a safe house, then many youth would be saved from entering the sex trade.

It is no use looking at the age of consent from the perspective of the advantaged, critically thinking, well protected 14 year olds. Asking them if they want Big Brother to interfere in whom they are sexually active with at 14 is folly indeed.

If one were to ask them if they thought 50-year-old men should be able to target 14-year-old runaways for sex, give them AIDS or other diseases or get them pregnant, one might get a different response.

There is widespread consensus that 14 is simply too young for the age of consent. Child psychologists agree that children younger than 16 lack the maturity and development to make good judgments and are unlikely to recognize the manipulative nature of pedophiles.

The results of dozens of studies show the effects of adult sexual contact with children. There is a 21% higher risk of clinical depression, a 21% greater chance of suicide, a 20% increase in post-traumatic stress disorder and a 14% jump in extreme promiscuity and involvement in prostitution.

Studies have also shown that between the ages of 13 to 15 years children are at the highest risk of sexual exploitation. However, despite all this evidence, the government continues to argue that youth are mature and sophisticated enough to ward off the advances of pedophiles and predators.

It is vitally important that we do no confuse physical maturation with psychological maturation. The “age of majority” is a term used by lawyers to describe the time in life after which a person is legally no longer considered a child. In essence, it is an arbitrary time when a child becomes an adult in the eyes of the law.

Why is it that we as a society feel children are ill-prepared to drive, drink, vote, marry, drop out of school or even watch violent movies but feel they are totally ready to decide for themselves with whom they should have sex? This makes no sense.

Raising the age of sexual consent would put us more in line with other western nations. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom it is 16.

In Virginia, like many other American states, the age of consent is 18. Adults having sex with 13 year olds to 15 year olds may be found guilty of felony “carnal knowledge” and face up to 10 years in jail and steep fines. Adults having sex with minors aged 16 to 18 may be guilty of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”, a misdemeanour that can carry jail time and a fine.

It is time for the Canadian government to follow the lead of other western governments and prohibit adults from having sex with children under the age of 16.

Some argue that raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would criminalize sex between teens close in age. This was the argument used by the Secretary of State for Children and Youth a couple of years ago in the House. She said that young people worry that they would become criminals if the age were raised. She stated:

They want to know they would have not only protection from predators but from a system that could unduly confine or prosecute them.They do not want to be doubly victimized by both the predator and those proposing to protect them.

In a similar vein, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Vancouver Centre, writes on her website:

Raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 would place unprecedented limits on the freedom of young persons. It should be noted that raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal. Such an amendment could allow a 16 year old to be prosecuted for virtually any sexual contact with a 15 year old boyfriend or girlfriend. Instead of criminalizing the sexual activities of consenting teenagers who are of a similar age, the Liberal government has focused on protecting our children from sexual predators.

This is sheer nonsense and borders on fearmongering. There is an easy solution to the concern of raising the age of consent. Too often young girls think they have found their Prince Charming. They are young and everything is beautiful. They cannot see the big picture. The government's refusal to budge on the age of consent further demonstrates how out of step the Liberals are with the values of Canadians.

As parliamentarians we need to act now before more innocent lives are ruined. Motion No. 221 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code that is consistent with the recommendations of all provincial governments and various stakeholder groups, including Beyond Borders, the Canadian Police Association and REAL Women of Canada.

Parliament now has the opportunity to send a direct and clear message to Canadians that it will no longer stand for the potential abuse of innocent 14 year old children by perverted 40-year-olds.

I call upon my fellow members to support this initiative and give our children the protection they deserve.

Canada Elections Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Before beginning private members’ business, I have a statement to make concerning the provisions of Bill C-312, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of returning officers).

As with all private members’ bills, the Chair has examined this bill to determine whether its provisions would require a royal recommendation and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question to a vote at third reading.

This bill proposes to alter the manner in which returning officers are appointed. Presently, section 24 of the Canada Elections Act gives the governor in council the authority to appoint 308 returning officers at pleasure. Bill C-312 proposes that appointments be made by the Chief Electoral Officer following an open competitive process for a term of 10 years.

This initiative already has been the focus of some commentary regarding the financial initiative of the Crown. Specifically, on April 11, 2005, during the take note debate on the Standing Orders, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean argued that the need for a royal recommendation is being interpreted much more strictly now than in the past, and that this particular bill does not entail any new or additional spending authorization. Indeed, he claimed that in the 2nd session of the 36th Parliament similar initiatives were proposed as amendments to Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, without any procedural objections being raised regarding an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

As to the matter of a stricter enforcement of the royal recommendation requirements, I would reply that the Chair is taking its responsibilities under Standing Order 94 very seriously. This is primarily due to the fact that all items of private members’ business are now votable. Previously, they were not.

At that time, if a private members’ bill appeared to require a royal recommendation but was not subject to a vote, then there was less of an obligation on the Speaker to inform the House of the exigencies of Standing Order 79(2), that is, the rules pertaining to the introduction of a royal recommendation.

I remind the House that on November 18, 2004, I alerted members to this situation. As I mentioned on page 1554 of Hansard , as the House has not yet begun to debate items of private members' business I felt that it would be of assistance to alert hon. members to the important impact that the requirement for a royal recommendation may have on their bills.

The standing orders leave no doubt that the House cannot be asked to decide on the motion for third reading of a bill requiring the expenditure of public funds unless proper notice of a royal recommendation has been given.

Should members have any concerns about the provisions of individual bills in this regard, it would be prudent for them to raise such concerns well before the third reading stage is reached.

It has been the practice in this Parliament for the Chair to raise concerns about private members’ bills at the commencement of second reading debate so that submissions may be made before a decision is taken by the House at second reading.

In this particular case, Bill C-312 contains some provisions which caused the Chair to pause and consider its impact on the financial initiative of the Crown. As most members know, bills which involve new or additional spending for a distinct purpose must be recommended by the Crown. The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill. What this means is that a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.

Bill C-312 transfers the power to appoint returning officers from the governor in council to the Chief Electoral Officer. Normally, the power to appoint includes the authority to pay. The transfer of this authority would appear to affect the manner in which spending was being authorized and so would appear to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. However, a closer reading of the Canada Elections Act seems to indicate that the authority to pay remains with the Governor in Council. Subsection 542(1) of the act states:

On the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, the governor in council may make a tariff fixing or providing for the determination of fees, costs, allowances and expenses to be paid and allowed to returning officers and other persons employed at or in relation to elections under this act.

Therefore, it appears that the bill is solely transferring the power of appointment without transferring the authority to remunerate returning officers. If this is the case, there is no infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

Bill C-312 contains two other provisions which appear to involve spending. It is proposed that returning officers are to be appointed by means of an open competition. Although this will involve the spending of public monies, it appears to the Chair that this would be an operational expense of the Chief Electoral Officer that would be within the annual appropriations provided to his office.

Another provision fixes the appointment period for a returning officer at 10 years whereas it is presently at pleasure. This is not an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown as it does not increase the public spending but only the identity of the persons to be paid over a 10 year period, that is, there would be fewer changes, if any, in the roster of returning officers during this period but the same number of returning officers in any event.

As with other bills, the Chair would seek short submissions from members on these specific points prior to the resumption of debate on second reading. In this way, the reasoning behind the decisions of the Chair in regards to the financial initiative of the Crown may be better understood, and the decisions will be dealt with in a timely manner. I believe that in the long run, the House will be well-served by this approach.

The Chair appreciates the patience of all members. The issues which are being raised on a series of bills in private members’ business touch on some of the fundamental concepts of our system of parliamentary government. It behoves us all to ensure that this process is conducted in a rational fashion so that decisions are consistent, and well-understood.

Justice

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of children against all forms of sexual exploitation, including child pornography, is a priority of the government. It was reflected in the first piece of legislation, Bill C-2, introduced in this Parliament. In the Speech from the Throne, we announced that we would take steps regarding the trafficking in children.

We have signed the optional protocol. We are now consulting with the provinces with a view to securing ratification as soon as possible.

Employment Insurance Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for having introduced this bill in the House of Commons. I am flattered because there are a number of similarities with the bill I introduced before the election. In computer lingo, this virtually called cut and paste. It could be said that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have much in common when it comes to the needs of workers in regions providing seasonal employment.

Some Liberals also agree with us that changes are needed. There have been past examples of this. I remember our colleague in the House of Commons, Georges Farrah, from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. I think he lost the election just over employment insurance.

This shows the hardships that people can experience in certain regions. We just need to consider the hon. member for Beauséjour, who is in favour of the EI reform. His experience representing people in the region of Cap-Pelé and Bouctouche, people working in the fish plants, has made him understand the importance of EI to seasonal workers.

Not so long ago, I met with the people of Cap-Pelé. The mayor asked if anyone was coming to recruit people working in fish plants to take them to Moncton. He said that he was happy for Moncton. He congratulated the city of Moncton on its unemployment rate, which is 5% or 5.6%. But if everyone from his region goes to work in Moncton, it means that the Cap-Pelé region might as well shut down. As the mayor of Cap-Pelé, he is not happy with the way things are going.

I was surprised to see my colleague from Peterborough shift and say that he cannot support such a bill. He was a member of the committee created after Bill C-2. The recommendations were along the lines of this bill. He has changed since he sat on that committee but, back then, he strongly supported the bill.

I remember too that the people of the Cape Breton region strongly supported it. When there is an election, people want to be part of the government so they can ensure that changes are made to EI because it needs changing. People are starting to realize that there have been a number of elections in which they say they want to sit on the government benches in order to change EI but it does not change.

This week I thought it shameful that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development had the gall—excuse me for saying so—to lower the employment insurance premiums. I thought this was a bit rude of him, especially since the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development is currently considering changes to employment insurance.

Instead, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is listening to the Conservatives. That is why I say there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The only thing the Conservatives ever ask for is lower employment insurance contributions, because they think the employers are being over taxed.

I do not know how many times I have said, here in the House of Commons, that no employer has ever called me to say that he was going to lose his business because he could not afford to pay the employment insurance premiums and that he needed them lowered. I hope my phone starts ringing tomorrow morning. I have not received those types of calls.

However, I have seen people demonstrating in the street to say that the employment insurance system does not cover seasonal employment adequately. That is what I have heard.

When I went to the Forestville area before the election, I was talking to people in the streets, including Forestville's young priest and the former priest, who is now retired. I remember what the priest told me. He said it was not a political story, but a human story. The cuts made to employment insurance by the Liberals in 1996 had a direct impact on families and children. That is where they are hitting.

There are 1.4 million children going hungry in Canada and it is the Liberals' fault.

During the election campaign, I remember hearing varying opinions from the Conservatives. In 2000, the Conservative leader said, in the West, “We must not change employment insurance. We must make some cuts in it”. In the east, he said, “We are going to change employment insurance for you.” He did not know that the Globe and Mail is sold all over Canada and that people read both messages.

The shameful thing is that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development listened to him and is reducing EI benefits to such a point that there will not be any money left in the EI fund to pay for what people need.

It may be a little comical, but as I have often said, you do not catch lobsters on St. Catherine Street in Montreal. The lobsters are in our waters, in Chaleur Bay and off Cape Breton. The lobsters are in the Bay of Fundy. People in Peterborough love our lobsters.

These people have seasonal jobs in regions like ours, in the Gaspé and Chaleur Bay, where everything freezes up in the winter. In fact, you cannot catch lobster in the winter. And besides that, we have to work within the quotas set for us by the government.

The people of Cap Pelé—and not just them, because this happens all over Canada—have found it necessary to cheat the system to accumulate hours, to do what some call “banking” their hours. They are breaking the law. In Cap Pelé, where the member of Parliament is a Liberal, 1,500 people were caught banking hours. The government told them, “We will not do anything to you. We will make the employer pay $5 million.”

At the same time, in my riding, 11 people were also banking hours. They had to repay the government $10,000 and $11,000. It is shameful that in a national program the government treats people represented by a Liberal member on way and the people represented by a member from another political party another—in a democracy like ours.

This is the biggest theft the government has committed in Canada: it has stolen $46 billion from the pockets of the workers and employers who have paid premiums into the employment insurance fund, and they took it to balance the budget and get to that zero deficit. It was all done on the backs of the workers who have lost their jobs and the children who have nothing to eat. It is shameful. That is what the Liberal federal government has done. Today it boasts that it has lowered premiums every year, and it does that to please the Conservatives.

I would like the people back home to know that the Conservatives are opposed to changing employment insurance. They think that slashing EI will send people back to work. I regret to say that my dear friends do not know their Canada. They do not know that some Canadians are in seasonal jobs and need employment insurance to get by. Punishing them and their families is not the way to help them get by.

I congratulate the member for Trois-Rivières on making recommendations, which I support 150%. I am not likely to ever need EI, but I see the hardships the Liberals have caused in my area.

When Doug Young lost his job here in Parliament, it was because he thrust the people of my area into abject poverty. I have women calling my riding office and talking of taking their own lives, because there is nothing left in the house. I have fathers calling and talking of suicide, because they are not able to support their families. The Liberal government is responsible for their desperate situation, with the help of the Conservatives.

know that I have said all this before. That is because the problem is still the same. There are Liberals who agree with me on this. I hope that this time they will be capable, in a minority government position, to do something about it. The same goes for the member for Beauséjour who has finally said—and it made the papers—that he hoped that, with a minority government, Parliament would be able to bring about the changes required to restore to workers what they are entitled to, and what has been taken from them.

The communities would be delighted to hear that. Workers are not the only ones hit by this. The Liberals are punishing the communities too. We are not all in Toronto, where there are jobs for the taking. In our area the situation is different, our workers are lured away to take employment elsewhere. Our regions are emptied. It is a kind of legal deportation. That is what is happening. The government is sticking it to the people in need.

Is this our Canada? Sometimes, we have to ask ourselves that question. We are not all as lucky as Alberta. If we had oil wells at home and if we no longer needed to fish, things would be different. I can assure the House that people back home are hard workers. When they move to Alberta, they are the first ones to get jobs, because they are hard workers. Contrary to what Doug Young once said in Hamilton, they are not lazy. That was written in the Globe and Mail .

In conclusion, I hope that hon. members will support this bill, that Liberals who are still not convinced will soon be and will do the right thing. It is not up to the Liberals to take that money and use it to reduce the debt and achieve a zero deficit. That money is there to help the needy, the families, the 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance benefits.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to tell hon. members what I think and what seasonal workers in our region think.

Canada Labour Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we seek to protect the rights of children and to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter. It is not a question of doing one or the other. It is a question of protecting all children against the risk of harm through child pornography and in a manner that will withstand charter scrutiny.

This is particularly relevant for the hon. member. What he refers to as a loophole, we regard as being principled leadership. If we do anything less than this in a manner of prohibiting pornography, we fail our children. If the child pornography laws do not comport with the charter, are struck down, and we have no child pornography laws, we also fail our children.

I call on all hon. members to support Bill C-2 and thereby lend the support both to the protection of our children and to the protection of our charter, which will allow for those child pornography laws to be sustained and protect our children.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his statement on a matter of compelling concern. We do share the concerns with respect to child pornography and closing any loopholes in that regard.

The test of a just society is how it treats the most vulnerable amongst us, and the most vulnerable of the vulnerable are our children. Therefore, we introduced Bill C-2, the protection of children and other vulnerable persons act, on October 8, 2004, as the very first legislative initiative of this session and of our government.

Bill C-2 proposes a broad package of six criminal law reforms that would significantly improve the criminal justice system's ability to protect our children and other vulnerable persons. I am referring here to those provisions that deal with the protection of victims from domestic violence, voyeurism, and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable class between 14 and 18 years of age. Central to this package of reforms, as the hon. member has rightly identified, are those reforms that relate to child pornography.

Our existing laws, with regard to child pornography, are already comprehensive in the manner in which they enact prohibitions on the possession, printing, sale, access, exportation et cetera of child pornography.

Importantly, these prohibitions apply to depictions involving real children under the age of 18 as well as those involving imaginary children such as a computer generated depiction or composite of a child. This is because both are to be condemned. The former because it involves the sexual abuse of a real child, and the latter because it portrays children as a class of objects for sexual exploitation, and thereby poses a real harm to children and society.

It is against this background that our bill proposed a number of reforms to broaden the definition of child pornography: to include audio formats as well as written material that has as its dominant characteristic the description of unlawful sexual activity with children where that description is provided for a sexual purpose; prohibiting the advertising of child pornography; increasing the maximum penalty for all child pornography offences on summary conviction from 6 to 18 months; making the commission of any child pornography offence with intent to profit an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes; of particular importance to the member's remarks and within the context of the whole bill, replacing the existing defences of artistic merit, education, scientific or medical purpose and public good with a two-pronged, harm-based legitimate purpose defence that would only be available for an act that has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art, and even with that legitimate purpose would not pose an undue risk of harm to children. The harm-based test is often ignored when questions and comments are put to it.

Simply put, the proposed child pornography defence, even with artistic merit in the context I mentioned, provides a narrower and clearer test and incorporates the harm-based standard used by the Supreme Court of Canada in upholding the existing child pornography provisions in 2001.

There are no loopholes in the bill. It proposes reforms that clearly underscore the serious nature of all child pornography offences by broadening our existing definition of child pornography to encompass new formats; by creating a new prohibition against new forms of criminal conduct; increasing the maximum sentences for these offences; and significantly narrowing the availability of a defence to ensure that--

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 5, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Justice

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that he has closed all the loopholes, but the legitimate purpose loophole in Bill C-2 still will allow the courts to excuse child pornography on the basis of it being so-called art.

Could the minister please tell me how child pornography could possibly be artistic?

Criminal Code

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to speak to Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 is a recycled bill. It was Bill C-12 and Bill C-20 in the past. I have spoken to this bill in the past and my colleagues have contributed quite a bit on the issue of the protection of children.

The Liberal government continues to recycle this bill but it has not taken the appropriate action. Much public pressure and public outrage made the Liberals drop the term “public good” as a defence for the possession of child pornography. They have now replaced “public good” with the new defence of “legitimate purpose”. Legitimate purpose is defined to include, among other things, art.

The bill's criteria for evaluating whether a relationship is exploitive is vague and subjective, and by not raising the age of consent from 14 to 16, the Liberals have put Canada's children at risk.

Since 70% to 80% of Canadian prostitutes enter the trade as children, we as lawmakers have the moral responsibility to protect children. Children deserve nothing less than full protection from child pornography.

The legislation that is before us is simply smoke and mirrors. The Liberals ignored the evidence from child advocates and front line police officers who came before us with lots of information to make the legislation effective.

The important mechanism that should be in place to protect children is not there. One is in the definition part, and rather than public good or whatever the legitimate purpose or for the sake of art, that is not good enough.

The second component is the age of consent. Because the Liberals have failed to prohibit all adult-child sex, children will continue to be put at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

As was the case with Bill C-12 and Bill C-20, Bill C-2 fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. In all western democracies the age of consent is at least 16. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15. In many other countries, including Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom, the age is 16. Despite all the premiers agreeing unanimously that the age of consent should be raised from 14 to 16, the Liberal government failed to provide that protection to our children. The age of consent could have even been raised to 18.

The Liberals have simply ignored the mounds of evidence that came before the committee in the past demanding that children be protected from child predators. The Liberal government has failed to provide our children with that protection. Children are our future and they are vulnerable. They need and deserve nothing less than full protection from child predators. We, as lawmakers, should provide that protection to children, otherwise we are failing in our duty.

I have been here since 1997 and I have listened to the Liberal government dither and be indecisive when it comes to providing full protection for family values, whether it is age of consent or providing protection to children.

As lawmakers, we need to make laws with teeth, and increasing maximum sentences does not help. We need mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offences, such as the possession of child pornography, so we can secure the protection of children. This is the place where we must do our best to provide protection to our children.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with just a moment of your time to congratulate you on becoming Chair. It is very nice to see you there and I am very pleased for you. I think you are going to enjoy the job very much. It makes my job tonight that much easier, because tonight I am going to speak not as a member of Parliament to the Chair but woman to woman.

This has been said many times before, but it bears repeating: Canada's children are our greatest natural resource. We take extreme measures to protect other natural resources and we should do no less for Canadian children. Bill C-2 falls far short in this regard. In fact, we can start right at the definition of a child. The government defines a child as anyone 14 and under when it should certainly be 16 and under.

Child pornography has become a multi-billion dollar industry and Canadian children should be protected from it. How do we do this? We must make every effort possible to shut down this industry, and that includes legislation making child pornography a very unattractive way to make money. We must make the punishment for producing or buying child pornography so tough that the risk of apprehension and prosecution is too high. It is simply unacceptable that these young people are robbed of their youth in order to fulfill the perverted desires of adults.

There is no defence for child pornography. This includes so-called art. Our courts routinely hand out slap-on-the-hand sentences for pedophiles. Karl Toft is an example of this exact thing. There was a man in a position of authority in a boys' training school. He molested hundreds of boys, did irreparable damage to these young men and received a 13 year sentence. To add insult to injury, this man now walks the streets of Edmonton in relative freedom, from a halfway house, and he collects his full government pension.

Can anyone call this justice when many of his victims have been incapable of making a living due to the psychological damage he inflicted on them?

In March 2002, B.C. superior court judge Duncan Shaw ruled that John Robin Sharpe was not guilty of possessing or distributing written child pornography because of the artistic merit of the work. Judge Duncan had no choice. This was included in the Criminal Code then and it will be again if Bill C-2 becomes law. Under the guise of legitimate purpose, we will find the word “art”. How can anyone interpret the brutalization of a child as art? Let us ask a child who has been brutalized if she or he would have allowed this to happen to them for the public good. Let us ask an RCMP officer who deals with this repulsive material during the course of an investigation if he can work the word “art” into the description of the material.

I had the opportunity one or two years ago of listening to a delegation from the Toronto police force that had the horrible chore of dealing with child pornography on a daily basis. They took our caucus into their confidence. They showed us films and told us what it is they deal with on a day to day basis. I still to this day cannot close my eyes without seeing those images. In this House of Parliament we are very careful not to offend the sensibilities of anyone, so I will spare members the details of what I saw. But I hope it is enough to say that I simply cannot allow this to continue.

I want to have a very strong law in this country. Bill C-2, in its current position, is not strong. The term “liable to a term not exceeding” should be replaced with “liable to a term of not less than”. This would leave the judges no room for wrist-slapping sentences for child abusers. This would give this law teeth. I could support it if this were to happen.

If the government is sincere about getting child pornography under control, it must occupy itself with the rights of the child, give the authorities the tools they need to bring these perverts to justice and mandate the courts to carry out the full force of the law.

In the short time I have been here, just under four years, we have stood in the House and we have heard the government present arguments called artistic merit, public good, and now, legitimate purpose.

This is not difficult. Madam Speaker, you are a women yourself and I am sure you understand as clearly as I do that there is no justification for child pornography. If we cannot stand up and protect our children then we fail miserably as a government.

In my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo we have a wealth of natural resources, including a copper mine. If someone came in and stole the copper from that mine they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There should be no less a consequence for stealing a childhood.

We as parliamentarians owe this assurance to the people we represent.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, in regard to Bill C-2, it is fairly obvious that children need protection in this day and age. We live in an age that is much different from bygone years. Children are very vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Pedophiles and people who are bent on this and attempt to violate the rights of our children are very well organized.

However, in addition to the children, there is another group that needs help in this area. The people who need help are the parents.

Prior to 2000, I practised law in a general practice situation. I had a very difficult situation to deal with in the mid-1990s. A nice young couple in their mid-thirties came into my office. They had a 14 year old daughter who had taken up a relationship with a man in his late forties. They went to the police, who said there was nothing they could do.

I told those people at first blush that the law would provide parents with the means and ability to provide for their children and protect them. I told them to return at a prescribed time the next day and in the meantime I would do some research and would have answers to their difficulties. I spent a fair amount of time researching the topic and the Criminal Code and provincial family services legislation and so on. I thought surely parents would have the power to protect a 14 year old daughter from what was clearly an exploitive situation.

I am a parent myself and I think most people in this House have been parents at one time or another. As parents, we know that 14 year old people are not at a stage in life where they can make those sorts of decisions. They need more maturity and education before they embark on making those sorts of decisions. I think it is an area for parental control.

In any event, when those parents came back the next day to see me, it was a very troubling experience for me. I had to tell these folks that the House of Commons was not able to provide them with the relief or remedy to deal with this sort of situation. I was the messenger and quite often in that business the messenger is the one who takes the heat.

One of the reasons I am in the House is that this is where we create the laws of the land. We are letting down these folks by not dealing with that particular issue. It would take very minor changes to the existing law to protect children by changing the age from 14 to 16. Basically, to use a phrase, it would be the stroke of a pen and we would have a million children in the country who would be able to be protected by their parents. Parents would have the law on their side. Right now they do not have the law on their side. They have their hands behind their backs. The law has tied them. They are incapable of protecting those children, who are at a very vulnerable age.

I can assure members that people who are in the sex trade and exploit young people are very aware of this loophole. They exploit it for everything they can get. I think it is incumbent on Parliament to act on this matter and do something that I think can make a difference in that area.

Another area I wanted to address is the area of the defences. Any time Parliament creates a criminal offence or deals with a criminal offence and then decides to set out the defences in the Criminal Code for that offence, besides the normal common law defences, it had better be careful on the wording of those defences.

Anybody in the House who has graduated from a law school and knows anything about our court system will know what a good defence lawyer can do with ambiguous, loosely worded defences. “Art” is a mile wide and a mile deep; it is in the eye of the beholder. Good defence lawyers I know who are given that kind of leeway are going to have a heyday.

The accused does not have to prove that there is a legitimate purpose. The defence does not have to do that. Anybody who graduated from law school knows what the defence has to do. Even laymen would know that. I think even you, Madam Speaker, would know the answer to that question. All the defence has to do is raise one thing called reasonable doubt.

I am sure this is what happened in Robin Sharpe's case. He had a good lawyer, who took this artistic merit argument and said, “We do not have to prove that there is artistic merit here. All we have to do is prove that there could be. Look at this. There could be artistic merit here. If you find that, Mr. Judge, you have to acquit the accused. That is the law”.

I am very troubled by this. There may be legitimate purposes and I am not going to deny it. The justice minister said that police are in possession of child pornography for the purposes of investigation. I can accept that, but this concept of art is just way too wide. Surely we have some legal minds in this country who could tighten up this thing and close the door to defence counsel running roughshod over our court system and allowing pedophiles and sexual exploiters to walk out of the courtroom and carry out this sort of activity against our young people.

The population of young people in this country is getting smaller and smaller, but it is our future. They are the people who are going to carry our heritage into the future. It is incumbent on lawmakers in the House to take the bull by the horns and take the measures that will adequately protect our young people, so they can become people who can enjoy and optimize their God-given talents in this society and not have to live with some haunting nightmare for the rest of their lives if they manage to survive some of these ordeals with sexual predators.

I am amazed about something from the last session. We had a motion to change the age of consent from 14 to 16. It seemed to me an obvious thing for us to do in the House. Liberal members, by and large, refused to vote for that motion. Then they were appalled during the election campaign when it was said that Liberals were soft on child pornography. This was a very simple measure that would have provided some real protection and some real teeth for police and parents in protecting children at that vulnerable age. I was not the one who made the decision to vote against that motion, so let me say that if the shoe fits, wear it.

I am very disappointed, quite honestly, that some of the people in the gallery who report on our business here do not do a fairer job of trying to report these very serious issues to the public at large. They treat them as minor and insignificant issues. Children being exploited by sexual predators is a very, very serious matter. It will cause irreparable harm to those people. We should be protecting them.

Conditional sentencing is another area. I think that when people do very terrible things to other people the number one criteria of our criminal justice system should be providing protection to the public. Liberals do not understand that a legitimate purpose of our criminal justice system is to provide protection to our law-abiding citizens who want to carry on with their lives. These people have broken the social contract. We cannot live in a free and democratic society when people do not respect the rights of other people and children. When they break that law, there has to be a consequence. The consequence is that they are incarcerated and are not on the streets to bring mayhem and harm to our most vulnerable people.

I think Liberals watch too many Hollywood movies. They get taken up with the Hollywood culture. In fact, a lot of Hollywood is run by people with a small-l liberal philosophy. I think that in their minds there are a lot of Jean Valjeans in this society, that is, falsely accused people, but they do not look at the victims and casualties of these kinds of policies.

The scales have to tip back to protecting our most vulnerable people, especially our children. The government has seriously let us down on this matter.

I thank you very much for your attention, Madam Speaker. I think you were even nodding at some points and I very much appreciate that. I just wish I could get more of your colleagues to agree with me.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I would like to acknowledge those who have made it possible for me to be here.

I would like to thank my constituents, the people of South Surrey--White Rock--Cloverdale, for their trust and confidence in me. I am greatly honoured to be their representative and I plan to do my best and hope that I can, in whatever modest way, meet their aspirations and expectations.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of my campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers who helped get me elected.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Andrea and my family for being a part of the process that brought me here today.

I am here today to speak to Bill C-2, the protection of children and vulnerable persons act. I believe all right thinking Canadians would agree that children deserve nothing less than total protection from child pornography. The devastating impact it has on its victims, their families and our society as a whole cannot be overstated.

It is with sincere disappointment that we must again address another Liberal bill that fails to provide children with the protection they deserve. While I am pleased that this new version also prohibits the advertising of child porn, something I proposed to the justice committee a year ago, this piece of legislation has serious problems. These problems include: the creation of the new legitimate purpose defence; the creation of the exploitive relationship category of offenders; the failure to raise the age of consent to at least 16 years of age; and the failure to adopt minimum sentences. I will now discuss each of these in more detail.

The first incarnation of the bill provided an artistic merit defence to the possession of child pornography. When the public outcry against such a defence became deafening, the Liberal government backed down and renamed it the public good defence. Let me be very clear. There is no such thing as public good when it comes to child pornography. If anything, the public good defence was a broader defence that incorporated all of the artistic merit defence and provided even more loopholes.

Now that it has become clear to Canadians that the public good defence is meaningless, the Liberals have introduced yet another defence, the legitimate purpose defence. The problem with this approach is the same as the others. It would still permit the courts to excuse child pornography on the basis of artistic merit.

As Conservatives we believe that all defences that justify the criminal possession of child pornography must be eliminated. All this new defence will do is make convictions harder to obtain by opening up a host of legal loopholes that could be used to justify the criminal possession of child pornography. This is because under criminal law, defences must be interpreted as broadly as possible. Under this new provision Eli Langer would still have had a defence for his pedophilic paintings.

Bill C-2 also fails to raise the age of consent for sexual contact between children and adults. Instead it creates the new category of exploitive relationships. This category is a vague provision that fails to create the certainty of protection that children require. It will therefore not serve as a real deterrent and will simply result in longer trials. It would be far more effective to drop the exploitive relationship category and simply raise the age of consent.

According to officers working at the Ontario Provincial Police porn unit, raising the age of consent is a matter of urgency. The current law prevents concerned parents, police and social service agencies from protecting or rescuing boys and girls who are coerced by older teens and adults. For example, whereas international protocol makes it possible to return a runaway 14-year-old Canadian girl from the U.S. or Mexico within 12 to 24 hours, according to Commander Ross MacInnes, who has 28 years with the Calgary vice unit, there is nothing they can do to get her back from another Canadian city because of the current age of consent law.

Eighty per cent of Canadians want it raised to at least 16 years of age. Only three years ago all provincial justice ministers unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to raise the age of consent to at least 16. As has been recognized in the House, most western democratic nations have a 16 years of age minimum and some are even at 18, like the United Kingdom.

The excuse that raising the age of consent may criminalize acts between teenagers is simply false. The Criminal Code already exempts from prosecution those closely related in age. This close in age exemption ensures that teenagers are not prosecuted. This exemption is also similar to what other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Australia and most U.S. states use while at the same time having a higher, more reasonable age of consent law. History shows that criminalizing teenagers was not an issue before the age of consent was lowered.

Considering that government legislation already acknowledges the inability of youth to be responsible with alcohol and cigarettes and seeks to protect them from their negative effects, why not raise the age of consent to protect youth from the detrimental physical and emotional consequences of early sexual activity? Raising the age of consent would send a clear message that Canadian society is committed to protecting our children, that we are opposed to the sexualization of children, and would provide parents and police with a valuable tool to rescue and protect children.

Finally, this legislation fails to address serious concerns regarding sentencing for child sexual offences. At present, the sentences given simply do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. According to Frank Goldsmith of the Ontario Provincial Police porn unit, one of their biggest concerns is the lenient sentencing coming from the courts. The harshest sentence he has ever seen for the possession of child pornography is two years less a day, which is house arrest, when the maximum for this offence is five years. He views house arrest for pedophiles as a slap on the wrist while their victims face a life sentence, something they will never forget.

Mr. Goldsmith believes that conditional sentences are a joke, since those under house arrest simply take the liberty to leave their homes as they wish, knowing they can always use the excuse that they are on their way to school or to work. In fact, Detective Constable Bruce Headridge, former head of the Vancouver Police vice unit, suggests that conditional sentences in this area have brought our justice system into disrepute.

Pedophiles know that our justice system does not view the possession and distribution of child pornography as a serious crime or concern. They read news articles like the one distributed by the Canadian Press entitled, “Possession of child porn rarely nets jail time”.

I find it appalling that there are minimum sentences for drunk driving but none for child sex offences. Again, as Conservatives we therefore call upon the Liberal government to introduce mandatory minimum sentences and abolish conditional sentences for sexual offences involving children.

Incarcerating those who possess child pornography not only helps protect other children from harm, it also acts as a deterrent to those considering exploiting children. According to Justice Michael Moldaver of the Ontario Court of Appeal:

Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they will pay a heavy price.

Some have argued that the minimum sentencing simply helps criminals perfect their skills. I can say that this is certainly not true for convicted pedophiles. They are always held in protective custody and never allowed to mingle while in prison, because otherwise hardened criminals who are disgusted by their crimes against children would harm them.

This is not a petty crime. This is about real children being abused, and we need real minimum mandatory sentences to protect them.

In conclusion, a truly free and democratic society is one that protects its weakest members from the appetites of those who, in the name of freedom, would degrade and harm our children. It is my strongly held belief that eliminating criminal defences instead of allowing loopholes, that providing mandatory minimum sentences instead of conditional ones, that raising the age of consent instead of pandering to sexual libertarians, all of these things will foster and support the dignity of children and send the message that they are to be accorded equal respect within Canadian society.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair. I congratulate you on your nomination to this position, for I know you thoroughly deserve it.

This is the first time I rise as the new member of Parliament for Pickering—Scarborough East. This is the second time my riding has changed its name. In 1993 the riding was called Ontario. Later it became Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. Now it has yet another name, Pickering—Scarborough East. It seems my riding is moving increasingly toward the west. If this continues, in 10 years I will be in Alberta.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-2. My colleagues on both sides of the House have spoken very eloquently and appropriately to the non-partisan nature with which the spirit of the bill is being proposed. There will be those who will always say that we have not done enough, but I am one of those who believes very heartily that we can and will do what is right to protect children.

Two years ago I joined and initiated a forum for colleagues in the House of Commons, attended thankfully by all members of the House, to probe the severity and the deep concerns that all normal Canadians had toward the issue of the growing frustration and proliferation of child pornography, particularly with the use of the Internet, much of it on the heels of the Sharpe decision.

It is clear to all here what can happen in an environment where the language we use to protect children from child exploitation is not clear. Above all, whatever legislation is proposed, amended and thrashed out in committee must be language that will serve to stand the test of time or we will be back at this debate, as so many members have said in a very frustrated way.

However, before putting some ideas forward, which the committees may want to consider, I want to talk about the last round of changes to legislation, which I believe were very successful.

One only has to speak to people in law enforcement. I know members on this side do and certainly members on that side will. When speaking to people from my child exploitation unit in the city of Toronto, Paul Gillespie, or Bruce Smollett or Frank Goldschmidt of the Ontario Provincial Police child pornography division, who is town, they tell me that something has changed in the past year.

In previous debates I have about the need for a coordinated strategy to ensure that we have training and perceptibility of our law enforcement agencies from coast to coast so when they receive information, they know how to process it to immediately address and tackle the issue. Time is of the essence.

We have established a National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. The NCECC, as it is known here, has gone from four people last year to 26 this year. In speaking to the various agencies, and those I spoke to over the summer, this is one of the boldest and most successful routes that has been taken and is one for which the House of Commons must be applauded. It was something to which we all agreed. We have put money into it, and I understand the provincial government of Dalton McGuinty has put $5 million toward it. There will be a coordinated effort to ensure that there is a sustainable financial future for this agency.

I also want to compliment Microsoft. This comes from a fellow who fought the Competition Act over the years and was concerned about dominant positions.

An element that has been touched on and one that we need to discuss in committee and in further debates is the purpose of lawful access. It is clear that those who are engaging in the violent and often degrading aspects of child exploitation need one element to be successful; the avoidance of detection. Avoidance is happening at an alarming rate. Our technology, certainly our means through lawful access to the latest of technologies, allows by stealth people to continue to exploit children. It creates a market for people like Mr. Briere who said, “If it were not fact that I didn't see the stuff, I would not have been triggered to kill Holly Jones”.

That was a tragedy which should be an indication to the House of Commons that the horses should not be spared in ensuring that the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privacy and the use of technology for lawful purposes be used in a way that we can protect children and give a modicum to that extent.

I heard the hon. member speak a little earlier about some of the concerns that he had about the age of consent. I note, and it is something that the committee will certainly want to look into, that England has raised its age of consent from 16 to 18. We also know that Canada has been on the forefront of trying to combat the international sex trade. We will see precedents in terms of our first case in the not too distant future. However, it is very clear to us that we need to ensure we have maximum information that is up to date and that presents the best opportunities that we have.

I understand all the fallout from the Sharpe decision. I have expressed my concerns on many occasions. We had consensus from our April 2002 meeting concerning the artistic merit, however small.

That was indeed a court sanctioned exemption which I believe was wrong. It must be worked on. We must ensure that there is no room for manoeuvrability and that child exploitation has no artistic merit at all. It must be seen as what it is and that is unlawful.

When it advocates and counsels is another condition that was written in by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is an exemption that in my belief will not help us further our desire of the necessity to ensure that no child is unduly exposed to people who intend to exploit them. It is for this reason that there is much to be said for and much to be learned from those who are on the leading edge of our debate today.

I would hope that a year from now we could come back to the House of Commons and say that rather than reacting to what has happened, we have been proactive. Nothing leads me to believe that more than in the insurance that we have in Canada, and I hate to use the term because it is sometimes a little trendy, of best practices. We must employ all of the facilities that are available to us nationally, internationally and regionally to ensure that optimum security and protection is given to our children.

There are a number of areas where this House of Commons can find consensus, where this House of Commons must find consensus.

In the meantime, I should point out that, even if this is still an issue the members want to discuss for political purposes, the people are imposing great constraints on us to ensure this situation is not exploited in a political way. The political issue should be eliminated when the stakes include protecting the interests of children—who are our future.

Our future is made up of young people, who, today, need the benefit of the doubt, doubt in their favour, especially when it involves a sentence handed down by a court.

I am hoping we might also avail ourselves of some of the people at the front end, those in psychology and psychiatry who understand what is involved with those who would assault and those who would exploit children. More important, there are people such as Dr. Peter Collins who has worked with the OPP for years. He was here at the House of Commons during that very interesting forum we had a few years ago on ways in which to combat child pornography. He warned the House of Commons and members who attended the forum that child pornography in the hands of people who are sick is the element which is the trigger for them and allows them to act out their fantasies and exploits children.

I would suggest that those who are in that position are sick and need medical help. They need treatment. They do not need expedient, trendy or obtuse legal reasoning. They certainly do not need us to say that the benefit of the doubt must always go to ensure that we are not convicting people who are innocent. We all understand that.

In this case what is needed is obvious to all who are in this business and who understand this business. Certainly with what happened this summer and which exploded during the midst of an election, Mr. Briere's admission, the time has come for Parliament to find all means necessary to ensure that it has optimal understanding of what is in essence a criminal mind and what it is going to take in these special circumstances.

Earlier I heard the hon. member for Wild Rose speak to the issue of using the notwithstanding clause. I was one at the time who voted for that resolution. Indeed, a number of us, the hon. member for Mississauga East, the members from Huron and London--Middlesex voted with the opposition because it was essentially an idea born out of frustration.

I can safely say that while that is an option, it is the last option we should be using. Right now I believe we have the means to do it. In my view if we are prepared to sit down and to work out and build on the legislation before us, as we did with the piece of legislation that produced the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, we will achieve next year results on issues that we think are so troubling this year. For the sake of our children we owe it to them.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. I actually rise to speak to the bill with a little bit of mixed feelings. It was about four years ago that I rose in the House to give my maiden speech as a member of Parliament on this very subject. It is unfortunate that four years have passed and we are still struggling with the issue. We are struggling with the issue not necessarily because of faults of the government, though certainly it should get some blame in that regard, but also because there are changing technologies and changing realities.

I appreciate the government bringing the legislation forward as one of its first bills to be debated in this House, because the is a bill of tremendous importance. Why is it important? This is why:

An Edmonton woman is facing multiple child pornography charges--including some related to her six-year-old son...And the investigation--which uncovered more than 100 images of children ranging from preschoolers to preteens in various poses or "explicit" sex act with adults--has led Ottawa cops to a male suspect in the nation's capital.

Another story reads:

At least eight Winnipeg children have been lured to the home of an alleged pedophile with promises of food, cash and porn, cops say..."We know this has been taking place for at least three months," said Winnipeg police...

Another story reads:

Members of the Ontario Provincial Police Child Pornography Section, Napanee OPP Detachment, and the Electronic Crime Section of the Ontario Provincial Police, have charged a 43-year-old [West] Napanee [Ontario] man following a child pornography investigation...with two counts of possession of child pornography, one count of distribution of child pornography and one count of luring.

Another is “100 discs full of child porn seized in B.C.”

The stories go on and on. These are just summaries of stories. I have over 300 pages of stories dealing with children, child pornography, children being victimized and failure of laws all throughout North America, and all these happened in the last two weeks.

This is a serious problem. One of the worst things we do in our society is destroy the innocence of the young before their time. We do it through television, through language, through movies and through our social moral complacency. Now, sadly, we are doing it as well through our laws by not using every and all known measures possible to prevent the exploitation of kids.

In 1987 the Progressive Conservative government of the day reduced Canada's age of consent for sexual activity from 18 to 14 years of age. The stated reason for the change was that the government did not want to criminalize teens who were sexually active with other teens, not that any of those charges were ever laid. However, since no restriction on the second person's age was mentioned, the law gave legal permission for fully grown adults to engage in sexual activities with 14, 15 or 16 year old kids.

Both the provincial attorneys general in Canada and the Canadian Police Association are in favour of raising the age of consent to at least 16 years of age. If we were to raise the age of consent to 16, we could offer, according to Statistics Canada, legal protection to roughly one million Canadians between the ages of 14 and 16 years. It would cost the state treasury nothing. It is simply a one word change that could save people some tremendous trauma and abuse. However, to some Liberals, changing a single word to safeguard a million children seems just too hard, too politically incorrect and perhaps too obvious to grasp.

The new urgency in dealing with the subject of exploitation of children was created when, on March 26 a couple of years ago, John Robin Sharpe was found guilty of possessing about 400 photographs of boys engaging in sexually explicit activity, but was acquitted on the charges of making and distributing child pornography in the form of his own written work. Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw said that the written works describing sado-masochistic violence and sex with men and young kids was morally repugnant but still had some “artistic merit”. What this means in application is that the writings are now legal and can be published. John Robin Sharpe and others of his perverted sort can now posture as artists and write and publish their most demented thoughts and desires about sexual acts with kids.

To successfully prosecute, the police and prosecutors now have to prove that the child pornography in question lacks John Robin Sharpian artistic merit. In other words, the best efforts of our law enforcement community to stop child pornography will be like cobwebs trying to lasso a locomotive; simply impossible.

The broad interpretation of artistic merit, which was in the John Robin Sharpe case, suggests that Canada's legislation has weaknesses that may not allow us to protect Canadian children to the best of our ability.

The demand for child pornography leads to its continued production and distribution. To suggest otherwise is naive and absurd. The idea that possession of one's own pornographic writing is harmless, especially in this electronic age of easy transmission or publication of material on the Internet is difficult if not impossible to control, simply ignores modern realities.

Some say we must be careful not to restrict freedom of expression. I say if there is any place that cries out for our society to say no, it is in the area of child pornography. I do not accept the concept that people should be free to defile children either physically or in writing. I do not accept the concept that there can be artistic merit in the victimization of children. I also do not accept the concept that the intention of exciting or arousing a passion that is perverted, illegal, immoral and in all fashion or form reprehensible to our society is acceptable in any form, even if it based on the rather far-fetched notion that the creators of such offensive material will not share with others and will only keep it for themselves.

The protection of society's most vulnerable members is our most important duty and responsibility, but unfortunately we are failing at this task. In November 2000 an international report on child abuse by an organization called, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, singled out Canada as a haven for sexual predators of children. The report stated that Canada had one of the youngest ages of consent for sexual activity at 14, whereas other countries were raising their to 16 and 18.

At one point Canada was considered a global leader in combating the sexual exploitation of children. Regressive age of consent laws, flawed legislation and an overall lack of planning at the federal government is now turning Canada into a venue for sexual exploitation of kids according to this report.

Our governments have failed our kids, the most vulnerable in our society. We have failed children. Having a debate about this legislation in the House is a step in the right direction, but much work does need to be done.

The Sharpe decision carved out two exemptions to the child pornography law: material such as diaries or drawings created privately and kept by that person for personal use; and visual recordings of a person by that person engaged in lawful sexual activity kept by the person for personal use. The latter exemption has the potential to expose children age 14 to 18 to further exploitation by child pornographers since they would be engaging in legal activity.

By the Liberals failure to prohibit all adult-child sex, children continue to be at an unacceptable risk. Only by raising the age of consent will young people be truly protected under the Criminal Code.

We are not advocating criminalizing sex between teenagers, as with other jurisdictions with a more reasonable age of consent laws, such as the U.K., Australia and the United States. A close-in-age exemption could easily ensure that teenagers are not criminalized.

Bill C-2 would increase maximum sentences for child related offences. These offences include sexual offences, failing to provide the necessities of life and abandoning a child. This is meaningless if the courts do not impose the sentences. We know by experience that when maximum sentences are raised, there is no corresponding pattern in the actual sentencing practices of the courts.

What is needed are mandatory sentences, truth in sentencing, eliminating statutory release and no conditional sentences for child predators. Modern technology has surpassed the legislative provisions that govern the use of evidence in these cases. The bill fails to address those shortcomings, and amendments are required to deal with child pornography cases effectively and efficiently in this regard.

We are concerned about the government's apparent unwillingness to entertain amendments aimed at improving the bill. In fact the justice minister today in question period indicated as much in his response to a question. We have received a different answer from the minister who spoke prior to myself.

However, if there is any subject on which all parties can agree, it must be on the protection of children. In this debate I applaud the government for bringing forward this legislation. However, this opposition party and I think all Canadians will condemn the government if it does not faithfully consider reasonable amendments to protect the most vulnerable in our society; our children.